Virginians.. ready to be felons?

[aleccolin]

+1 the issue here is rights. All the Constitution (both Federal and State) does is tell the GOVERNMENT what they are expressly forbidden from doing. The People have the power. We don't need permission to be armed. The Government isn't allowed to fuck with that. It's a RIGHT. It is the responsibility of government to protect those rights, and the People have arms to make sure that happens.

The fact that these documents use the term RIGHT was done specifically because any argument against a RIGHT will by definition always be insufficient. The justification included for each restriction on governmental power is secondary to the RIGHT being protected.

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

In more modern language, and also in-keeping with the CLEARLY established, well documented and supported intent of the Founders, this could be written:

Government may not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, because an armed citizenry is necessary to maintain a state of freedom.

Remember, these guys understood what it meant to be under the thumb of an oppressive government, and purposefully and skillfully built a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC with an ironclad Constitution centered around the LIMITATION of Governmental power and protection of the RIGHTS of the People.

Out of date, how fucking DARE you. Go talk to a Hong Konger and ask if it's out of date.

Sponsored

 

[Interceptor]

Understand what is written but the way it was worded it sounds like God gave you the right to own a gun, which I feel is misleading. The right is from our government not God.

 

[aleccolin]

Understand what is written but the way it was worded it sounds like God gave you the right to own a gun, which I feel is misleading. The right is from our government not God.

EDIT: I'm updating this for general coherence.

By legal precedent and definition, Natural Rights are not and can not be granted by Government and Civil Rights are those that belong to every citizen. This is at the very core of our American system of government.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

You, by virtue of being human, have the RIGHT to your Liberty, and by virtue of being American, have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms to protect it.

 

[Interceptor]

And yes, very bad assumption, but it shouldn't matter. The point is regarding the argument, not the origin of the person who points it out.

If the person is not an American they view the world different, from their prospective environment, from their laws regulations and news medias. Therefore when someone from another continent armchairs there opinions, well I'm sorry but I really feel it just globalist talking points. So it is about the person to me.
Don't under estimate what Americans will not give up freely. We are a desfunctal bunch, but we will all join together when needed.

 

[Caballus]

If the person is not an American they view the world different, from their prospective environment, from their laws regulations and news medias. Therefore when someone from another continent armchairs there opinions, well I'm sorry but I really feel it just globalist talking points. So it is about the person to me.
Don't under estimate what Americans will not give up freely. We are a desfunctal bunch, but we will all join together when needed.

Spent a large portion of my adult life serving (for the United States of America) overseas, most often alongside partners and Allies, so I get that there are different perspectives. Often, those outside perspectives point out aspects of issues that we would have otherwise not considered.

However, #1. I am very American; #2 In this case it doesn't matter, because what I am talking about is basing the argument on the 2nd Amendment, which no longer supports the position. #3. I am not convinced we all join together when needed--our weak military recruitment statistics do not support that talking point.

 

[Shifting_Gears]

Nobody needs a gasoline powered V8 muscle car to drive 65 on the Highway..... see how that works?

Not to mention the 2nd amendment is a GOD GIVEN RIGHT... driving is a privilege licensed by the government.

Far from a God given right my friend.

Unless you consider the founding fathers God.

 

[Shifting_Gears]

EDIT: I'm updating this for general coherence.

By legal precedent and definition, Natural Rights are not and can not be granted by Government and Civil Rights are those that belong to every citizen. This is at the very core of our American system of government.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

You, by virtue of being human, have the RIGHT to your Liberty, and by virtue of being American, have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms to protect it.

The problem that invokes is the mix of religion and law.

If one does not believe in God, do they retain the right to bare arms?

If they don’t, why? Because they don’t believe in a Christian God, or Christ?

If the answer is yes, you’ve just alienated anyone that has different religious beliefs, any of whom could be 100% American.

This is an issue that now more than ever rears it’s ugly head in politics when one group fights for rights versus another.

To clarify - I support God and gun ownership, but gun ownership in my opinion isn’t a “God given right”. God was here long before guns.

 

[Caballus]

The problem that invokes is the mix of religion and law.

If one does not believe in God, do they retain the right to bare arms?

If they don’t, why? Because they don’t believe in a Christian God, or Christ?

If the answer is yes, you’ve just alienated anyone that has different religious beliefs, any of whom could be 100% American.

This is an issue that now more than ever rears it’s ugly head in politics when one group fights for rights versus another.

To clarify - I support God and gun ownership, but gun ownership in my opinion isn’t a “God given right”. God was here long before guns.

Devil's advocate--pun intended...

If someone does not support the laws of the land, does that stop them from being subject to them?

If someone does not believe in the laws of nature (gravity, spherical earth...) does that stop them from being subject to those laws?

If God really exists and someone does not believe in Him, does that negate the impact He has on their lives, to include the bestowing of certain rights?

 

[Caballus]

+1 the issue here is rights. All the Constitution (both Federal and State) does is tell the GOVERNMENT what they are expressly forbidden from doing. The People have the power. We don't need permission to be armed. The Government isn't allowed to fuck with that. It's a RIGHT. It is the responsibility of government to protect those rights, and the People have arms to make sure that happens.

The fact that these documents use the term RIGHT was done specifically because any argument against a RIGHT will by definition always be insufficient. The justification included for each restriction on governmental power is secondary to the RIGHT being protected.

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

In more modern language, and also in-keeping with the CLEARLY established, well documented and supported intent of the Founders, this could be written:

Government may not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, because an armed citizenry is necessary to maintain a state of freedom.

Remember, these guys understood what it meant to be under the thumb of an oppressive government, and purposefully and skillfully built a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC with an ironclad Constitution centered around the LIMITATION of Governmental power and protection of the RIGHTS of the People.

Out of date, how fucking DARE you. Go talk to a Hong Konger and ask if it's out of date.

Could be rewritten in a modern context in order to update the 2nd Amendment and make it relevant today. However, it was not written that way. It was written in a way that focuses on a well-regulated militia overseen by the government. The people, in that context, were expected to comprise that militia under the control and guidance of the state. How dare we not constantly evaluate the Constitution that we risk our lives to support and defend...

 

[Shifting_Gears]

Devil's advocate--pun intended...

If someone does not support the laws of the land, does that stop them from being subject to them?

If someone does not believe in the laws of nature (gravity, spherical earth...) does that stop them from being subject to those laws?

If God really exists and someone does not believe in Him, does that negate the impact He has on their lives, to include the bestowing of certain rights?

All valid points. Trying to apply that logic to laws that everyone agrees with is damn near impossible. Everyone has an opinion and is too entitled. Strange times we live in.

 

[slag1911]

Could be rewritten in a modern context in order to update the 2nd Amendment and make it relevant today. However, it was not written that way. It was written in a way that focuses on a well-regulated militia overseen by the government. The people, in that context, were expected to comprise that militia under the control and guidance of the state. How dare we not constantly evaluate the Constitution that we risk our lives to support and defend...

The Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia. See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570.

Additionally, one needs only to look to the The Federalist Papers as to the intent of the founders when it comes to personal gun ownership. HINT: it has nothing to do with hunting.

 

[Caballus]

I ak

The Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia. See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570.

Additionally, one needs only to look to the The Federalist Papers as to the intent of the founders when it comes to personal gun ownership. HINT: it has nothing to do with hunting.

I acknowledge the DC v. Heller and what the initial intent was of the founders. My point is the 2nd Amendment argument is precarious and at risk. A stronger foundation needs to be found or rights will continue to be curtailed. Look back at the fact that DC v. Heller elaborated and reinterpreted U.S. v. Miller ("The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon."). This could be reinterpreted again if the 2nd Amendment is used as justification for the reasons I stated in the initial post.

That's the only point.

 

[accel]

Far from a God given right my friend.

Unless you consider the founding fathers God.

Early humans used stone made weapons as early as 71,000 years ago. I do not think they forgot to ask for government or any other institution's permission in order to do that.

 

[Caballus]

Early humans used stone made weapons as early as 71,000 years ago. I do not think they forgot to ask for government or any other institution's permission in order to do that.

Early humans had no concept of murder 71,000 years ago...

 

[accel]

Early humans had no concept of murder 71,000 years ago...

What?

Sponsored